Hello Sup Forums, there was a thread about fags the other day where there was this guy who defending fags...

Hello Sup Forums, there was a thread about fags the other day where there was this guy who defending fags, saying that it was all a minority who engaged in degenerate activities and that today's gays aren't as sexually promiscuous as the gays during the AIDS epidemic (also saying that today, gays don't have as much AIDS, about as much as heterosexuals) around the 70's when the studies were conducted ("out-of-date" and "irrelevant" studies).

What are your thoughts on homosexuality, do you have any objective evidence that homosexuals are degenerate in that they account for the majority of pedophiles, AIDS/STI patients (or have these disease even though they are a minority of the population)? I was under the belief that this was common knowledge, but I'd like to get some other opinions.
Also, don't just say it's in the Bible because that's technically an appeal to authority (also because Godless heathens don't care enough to save their own souls).

Other urls found in this thread:

deadlinedetroit.com/articles/4282/dave_agema_s_homophobic_facebook_post_was_short_on_facts
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6893897
aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/
frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3
cdc.gov/std/life-stages-populations/stdfact-msm.htm
sfgate.com/health/article/Russian-Roulette-Sex-Parties-Rise-in-gay-2949794.php
psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6765390
cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/
youtube.com/watch?v=SydfoFLWmds
youtube.com/watch?v=7Z6TecVZAhk
lifesitenews.com/news/epidemic-1-2-of-gay-men-will-have-hiv-by-age-50-if-current-rates-continue-w
youtube.com/watch?v=eE9JlONzrVU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Bump

Stop getting invested in someones personal business you annoying faggot.

This isn't about privacy issues, it's about the lifestyle and the facts behind it. If you have evidence behind why what you say is true, I'm all ears.

I guess I should have baited people if I wanted responses.

>("out-of-date" and "irrelevant" studies)
wasn't that the only person actually posting links to debunk studies? the christfags were just shitposting

This whole "hate fags" thing is mostly North American. Lurk moar and you'll see Amerifats almost exclusively making posts about "degeneracy" (i.e music videos), homosexuality and women (i.e sex). I wish the mods weren't asleep

article debunking: deadlinedetroit.com/articles/4282/dave_agema_s_homophobic_facebook_post_was_short_on_facts

Yes, it was just one person. Really odd, because anytime somebody responded something contrary to what he was posting, he'd say something like this: "Oh, nice try though! Work on your arguments later with mommy and daddy, hahaha you maroon!"
Kind of like he got a rush off of it. Wasn't even Australian, he was American. Happy Fourth of July, by the way.

I agree with them, all those things are not good. Feminist women bastardizing tradition, fags spreading disease (allegedly), and Jewish media shilling for all of it on the sidelines.

Yes, that is it. The attached image was posted and the article was also posted to debunk it. I skimmed the article and it lined OKCupid stats for their claim that gays are not as promiscuous, but I thought to myself: "Why didn't they check Grindr, or other dating applications?"
Personally, I agree with the attached image.

are you eurofags that stupid and sheltered

except it doesn't matter if you agree with the image, the posted percentages are false. read the article...
Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. "Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence" (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels "subjective distress") (27).
Actually, according to the APA, the removal of homosexuality from the DSM's mental illness list was the result of scientific studies, including the groundbreaking research of Dr. Evelyn Hooker. Science!

Joseph's claim that the APA doesn't consider pedophilia a mental illness is backed by a 1989 Congressional Record citation, which means some Congressman (protected by parliamentarian immunity) said it was so. That does not make the statement true. The APA does consider pedophilia is considered a mental illness.

the cited source for that infograph claims obama to be gay as well. do you not know how to fact check m8

I was referring to the claim that homosexuals, even though they are a small percentage, account for a large chunk of the pedophiles. The link between pedophiles and same-sex children, STI infection rates, the AIDS "bug-chasing" phenomenon and if it really is as isolated, and the overall subversion of culture and morals you see in Pride Parade being a little more indicative that fags just really like rainbows.

I've no real fight against them. I'm sure that plenty of folks on here aren't very happy about that.

I'm certainly not saying that homosexuality has potential to be a vector or catalyst to unhealthy behavior, both to the individual and to the society at large.

However, I feel that much more tangible and empirical good can be done through eugenics programs; termination of fetuses significantly likely to suffer from severe cognitive or learning disability. Incentivized sterilization of those under a certain level of intelligence.

Of course, a modern measure outside of intelligence quotient would have to be generated for this to be proper.

In addition, I'd like any violation of the non-aggression principle to be punished by either forced labor on infrastructure maintenance/improvement/construction projects, or public hanging+gibbeting for more heinous violations like violent rape/murder/grand theft, etc.

The closest thing to absolute liberty possible for citizens of the nation. A quick, but emotionally-charged and public death for those inflicting harm on others or their property; for the good of the rest of us.

fuck

>
I'm certainly not saying that homosexuality has potential to be a vector or catalyst to unhealthy behavior, both to the individual and to the society at large.

should be

>
I'm certainly not saying that homosexuality DOESN'T have potential to be a vector or catalyst to unhealthy behavior, both to the individual and to the society at large.

Speaking for myself, and my experience of other LGBT people, most sleep around in adolescence and university then cool down the same as anybody else. I would say that campus culture is a pretty enabling one though, and that gays are at greater risk from STIs because at any one time there'll be a harem of hags applauding every sordid encounter. They love to live vicariously through the risky practices of others, and applaud them for being 'so brave'.

But yeah, I don't know any weird gays but lots of boring/ functional ones.

Nice triple dubs.
I agree with the eugenic option, but there has to be a line in the sand, as clear as possible, to avoid some Brave New World type scenario from unfolding.
I would also suggest that repressing the media from distributing filth would have huge results as well, many are subverted from this point.

I read something about gays once, some spokeperson said this, that the endgame of all this was to normalize their behaviour until the public viewed it as the same thing as choosing a different flavour of ice cream, just another every day decision.
A gay man can never have sex, they can only sodomize one another.

i don't understand why you guys parrot all this stuff without doing a 5 second google search to confirm if what you're saying is factual.
This study compared prevalence rates of most common sexually transmitted diseases (STD) in heterosexual and homosexual men who made respectively 12,201 and 5324 visits to an STD clinic over 18 months. Overall, homosexual men were significantly (p < 0.001) more likely than heterosexual men to have gonorrhea (30.31% vs. 19.83%), early syphilis (1.08% vs. 0.34%) and anal warts (2.90% vs. 0.26%) but less likely to have nongonococcal urethritis (NGU) (14.63% vs. 36.40%, p < 0.001), herpes genitalis (0.93% vs. 3.65%, p < 0.001), pediculosis pubis (4.30% vs. 5.35%, p < 0.005), scabies (0.42% vs. 0.76%, p < 0.02), and genital warts (1.68% vs. 6.69%, p < 0.001). In most cases the differences in rates remained significant (p < 0.05) when corrected for age and race. It is speculated that higher rates of gonorrhea and syphilis result from a larger mean number of sexual contacts, more potential sites of infection, and more hidden and asymptomatic disease, while the lower rates of the other STD result from a lesser susceptibility of anal mucosa to the causative agent(s) of NGU, herpes genitalis, and venereal warts or from a lack of pubic apposition (pediculosis pubis).
source: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6893897

different diseases effect the groups differently, this is because of the sex mainly.

You seem to be making some claims without posting sources or any form of evidence, which last I checked, was Not An Arguement. My answer to you is to kys because you were probably molested as a child by your uncle and now you are blaming all gay men for what happened to you.

aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/

I can't refute your claim that state repression of media would be at least somewhat likely to achieve the outcome that you'd like. If I had a hypothetical, mystical choice of a nation to live in, I would absolutely choose one with more "traditionalist" values and framework that you probably desire.

All the same, I do not consider it the business of a nation-state to legislate morality upon its citizens. Might be a by-product of my lolbertarian days.

At the core, I'm a proponent of liberty. The unfortunate fact that many choose to exercise this liberty in a way I find cancerous does not mitigate this.

I diverge strongly from the lolbertarian camp on the issues of authoritarian punishment and border control. Surprisingly, little else.

Not parroting anything, friend. I have never had an STI, and I haven't experienced any radical or outlandish behaviour. Anecdotal only.

It really is pretty similar. Sex with women is better though, in general.

>Aids

You can solve AID by teaching adding a portion about how to have safe gay sex in high school sexual education. Also You are factual wrong that the majority of pedophiles are gay. I'm also curious how you feel about things like the Down Low. Where straight guys have sex with gay mean and say "No Homo."

he is correct about the pedophile thing. a large majority of men who molest boys do not report sexual interest in other men - thus they are pedophiles and not gay men. the same equivalency would be me comparing heterosexuals to pedophiles who molest girls.

except that doesn't counter that homosexuals have the same rate of STDs as proved above. finding one disease doesn't change that exception. straight men are more likely to have herpes, scabies, genital warts, NGU, and HPV.

>The unfortunate fact that many choose to exercise this liberty in a way I find cancerous does not mitigate this.
Pic related, I don't want this to be our future when they start to gain enough traction that when you wish to revolt, you no longer have the option.

>It really is pretty similar.
Sexual intercourse has the one goal, and that is to reproduce. Two men can never achieve the goal of sexual intercourse, therefore what they are doing can not be considered sex.

Checked. Never heard of the other thing, didn't you just describe /fit/?

Sorry mate, I wasn't finished, I'm trying to find information. Everything is literally just Quora articles or shit from Vox.
Also, straight men are a larger chunk than gay men, you need to speak about it in terms of proportions. It's like how blacks commit about the same crime as whites, but the proportions put it into perspective.

frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

cdc.gov/std/life-stages-populations/stdfact-msm.htm

Sexual relationships fall under privacy. A persons health information is covered under HIPPA.

>Sexual intercourse has the one goal, and that is to reproduce.
Unlike most other species but in common with a few (i.e. bonobo monkeys and dolphins) humans have sex for pleasure and companionship. This has always been the case, and to divorce it from emotion and sensation is reductive and misguided.

The Down Low is when males try to remain straight by having sex with other men then go home and sleep with their wives. A lot of these men will be at Bareback party.

I don't disagree that the homosexual community has a shitty culture. I'm saying that unlike other culture in america. It wouldn't be that hard to change.

...

What are your responses to NAMBLA and bug-chasing trends in the homosexual communities?

Does that stand for the health information privacy protection act?
Again, pride parades and media broadcast of the behaviour, not very private about ramming it down our throats. It is, fundamentally, an effort to change the general perception of the people to view gays as "just another ice cream flavour". I'm trying to find a quote where some spokesperson talked more about this.

Ever hear of AIDS roulette?

sfgate.com/health/article/Russian-Roulette-Sex-Parties-Rise-in-gay-2949794.php

>frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3
>family research council as a source
from your own source:
The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.
False: homosexuality is rated between 6-10% in the U.S.

Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.
misspelling in your source. nice, seems very valid. except not. he's a more factual source for you buddy: psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143
good try tho

do you actually believe bug chasing is a trend the majority of homosexuals peruse? can you really be this daft to assume even 3-6% of our population would want aids? stupidest assumption ive heard on pol...

>Two men can never achieve the goal of sexual intercourse
By that definition anyone that uses a contraceptive isn't having sex either.

>Nambla

When a congressmen with a wife and kids has sex with another guy. Do you consider him a homosexual?

Don't forget that one of my two extremely large divergences from non-authoritarian libertarian policy is on allowance of non-citizens into the nation.

There needs to exist an advisory organization of extremely good calibre; the function would be to determine using empirical methods, what sort of immigration would be USEFUL for the nation. By this I mean that the immigration would have a net-positive impact on the lives of the pre-existing citizens.

If this body determines that imported unskilled labor is necessary for improvement of the nation and its citizens, that policy would be pursued. If importation of only highly-skilled and in-demand individuals would be beneficial, that policy would be enacted.

And if it is determined, through empirical methods, that the nation's citizens would experienced improved quality of life through a complete and total lack of immigration into the nation, it'd be so.

The liberty that I cherish so much is only to be made available to citizens of the nation. The nation-state does not have an obligation to be concerned with any aspect of the lives of non-citizens.

Oh, and I'm also very supportive of ending universal sufferage. Think Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers on this one. Sufferage (or even citizenship) is never bestowed upon a person without cause. The right to vote should be reserved for those of high intelligence (as determined by a currently non-existent superior measure of intelligence unattached to intelligence quotient). Those of lower intelligence and capability must be able to earn the right to vote through service to the nation in myriad forms.

>This whole "hate fags" thing is mostly North American

No it's universal Sven just not in your over cucked failing country, faggots are the ones who started the degeneracy, they're disgusting scum that needs to be purged

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a fallacy, isn't it? Isn't it an appeal to nature, that just because some animals engage in it, that means we are justified in also doing it?
Not trying to divorce it from emotion, birthing a child is permanent emotional glue that holds couples together. It is the most emotionally charged moment in a couples experiences.

That's disgusting.

Requesting the image "I see you made a spelling mistake. Nice try, buddy".

You say that male pedophiles say they have no interest in adult men, but only 50% of that statement is true. The key point that I am trying to make is that they are attracted to the same sex.
"good try tho" I see the OP from the last thread I was referring to showed up.

Not a majority, but proportionally speaking, disturbing at the very least.

They are having sexual intercourse, they are just preventing themselves from having a child. The key point is the potential, the woman can still rear a child if she went off the pill. Two men, however, can not.

He is attracted to a child of the same sex as he is, he is a homosexual predator.

There is more to preserving a nation that material wealth and economic prosperity. Refugees are imported to Europe under the guise that they will be "important taxpayers" and will "pay themselves off", deemed so by an "advisory organization of extremely good calibre".

>The nation-state does not have an obligation to be concerned with any aspect of the lives of non-citizens.
If they live within the borders of the nation, they are citizens. Not sure who you are referring to in this case.

I agree with the final paragraph.

As much as I would like to continue this, let's steer the conversation back to bashing me for not defending gays.

I'm bisexual and think gays are fucking degenerates
Their whole lifestyle revolves around the fact they suck cock, and the stereotypes are so spot on it's insane
It's nice meeting the odd gay person who isn't a queer sounding limp wristed faggot once in a while

>Appeal to nature
You're arguing that the sole purpose of sex is procreation. This is untrue, unless we frame it as an appeal to nature. That is simply not the reason that most people have sex. The fact that straight couples 'prevent themselves from having a child' demonstrates that it is not the goal. The potential is irrelevant. Assuming that the active partner in gay sex ejaculates, he has just as much 'potential' of creating a child - which is to say, none in context but he's doing his part, it's just those darned holes confounding him as women on contraception do. What about a man who has had a vasectomy? There's no chance whatsoever of him procreating through sex. Doesn't that count as sex either?

you can find degenerates that are straight too buddy. just check craigslist - there is heterosexual bug chasers believe it or not.

>Requesting the image "I see you made a spelling mistake. Nice try, buddy".
said your source had one, which should of been a read flag in the first place. I see you ignored my source debunking yours though.
>but only 50% of that statement is true.
again false equivalency, I already proved they're not gay men. these are pedophiles.

How dare you post that flag on a christian board.

NAMBLA is a bunch of gay pedos and there are straight pedos as well, so I'm not sure what you want me to say about them that?
>health information privacy protection act
That's the one
>pride parades
It's being done legally and people protest them legally(which you are free to do).
>and media broadcast of the behaviour
The media broadcasts various kinds of behavior and you should be more worried about your kids being indoctrinated by corporations into becoming mindless consumers than them being accepting of homosexuality. The media broadcasts just more heterosexual behavior and in more grotesque versions of it than that of homosexual behaviors.
Although, as with all media, it's up to you whether or not you consume it.

You are self bumping your gay shit thread. You don't belong here, gays don't belong in the western world. As our wommen you make us weak you vote in forgin shitskins and let them destroy evrything the white man built. You gays and the wommen have destroyed our faith and churches which has made the youngs degenrate fags. We atleast need wommen but we don't need you, death sentence shoulde be aplied to fags.

>two cities with highest concentration of gays are rich, have no influx of refugees, and are the largest tech cities in the world
>de ebil homosexuals literally DESTROY civilizations

If you engage in promiscuous activities with a male, you are a sodomite. Please stop this "gay men, not faggots" meme, it's the same as "black men, not niggers" meme. The question is: is it worth it to retain relations with this group of people if it means tolerating the crime or the sodomy.

I agree with you, insofar as sex is driven by emotions related to pleasure and to have children.
Just because modern culture is shifted towards not prioritizing children does not mean that this is no longer a goal of sexual intercourse.
The potential is not irrelevant. A gay man's semen can never reach an egg because there is no egg. The female will have an egg, there will just be a figurative wall in between the two gametes.
Vasectomies are the tilting towards sex for pleasure over children (i.e. demonstrative of the individualist society, me me me). Basically castrating himself, the ultimate beta, never passing down your genes.

"They have bad guys on their side as well! This somehow negates our bad guys!"
It's like saying "nobody's perfect", it has one goal and that is to relieve pressure from your end by assuming everybody is "x".
I didn't ignore it, I am reading it right now. Pretty long, sorry I can't read as fast as you can.

In what way is it a false equivalence? What is the definition of homosexuality? They are attracted to members of the same sex, they are homosexuals who are predators.

Sorry.

Good point about the media, but I disagree about becoming consumerists over sexual deviants. Much of media is aimed towards perverting chastity and abstinence in youth, leading to their moral downfall into a life of individualism, where all they care about is pleasure: a hedonist's paradise.

That is what I am trying to argue here, but neo-Sup Forums loves gays and alt-right fags all of a sudden.

You just outed yourself as the shill from the previous thread, you posted the same weird stock photo.

>key point is the potential
You keep shifting the goalpost there buddy, but fine I'll take the bait. If we are considering potential then the potential lies with the sperm. Therefore, it can be argued that as long as the sperm is used to fertilize an egg then sexual intercourse has taken place. If two men stimulate each other to the point of climax and deposit their semen in a specimen cup and donate the sperm for artificial insemination then the "potential" requirement of the act has been met and they would have effectively had sexual intercourse.

>Refugees are imported to Europe under the guise that they will be "important taxpayers" and will "pay themselves off", deemed so by an "advisory organization of extremely good calibre".

Naturally, the subjective qualifer "of extremely good calibre" means that I, personally, would approve whole-heartedly of their methodology and practice, lmao. If it ain't glaringly obvious, I don't even begin to approve of the contemporary inundation of non-assimilating and truthfully cancerous folks into nation-states.

Fair enough, though! I'll not derail your thread anymore. Cheers, homie.

In fact, you made the same argument against me, and when I told you that material wealth is not the defining factor, you laughed and called me stupid.
I will say what I said again: the moral degradation of a people is worth more than wealth. Perverting the relationship between men is not healthy for a civilization if it wishes to thrive. They are statistically more at-risk for diseases, as I have shown above. You say that bug-chasing, pride parade behaviour, and pedophilia are not unique to gays, and I agree, but proportionally speaking, many pedophiles are attracted to the same sex. Pride parade is being shilled into normalization, as is sodomy. The bug-chasing has forums dedicated to it (again, proportionally speaking it is dangerous, obviously there are straight degenerates as well).

Anything by this poster: can be found in the previous thread, he is repeating, literally word for word and image for image, what he said in the old thread I referenced.

actually no, unlike you all I had to do was look at that last thread and just copy and paste the same shit. no one has debunked a single one of those links or found contrary evidence so why should I spend the time finding new stuff no one will read once again?

Gay men don't go to LGBT parades, faggots do

>They are statistically more at-risk for diseases, as I have shown above.
>proving to me you won't read the links
this is why im not wasting my time. see:
your only "counter" for this was posting aids was more prevalent among fags. this is not an argument against fags having the same rate of STDs as shown right here...

Gays seek out prosperity as shitskins. The only reason shitskins aren't taking over these areas if they even existes since you diden't mention what cities, is becuse there is still a majority of clear thinking non degenrate men voting. Fags aren't famoues for their non tolerant belives they are famoues for being degnerate shits and a pest upon society.

The sperm needs the egg. I'm not shifting the goalposts, you bring up valid points and I rephrase my statement, taking into consideration the new information presented to me. We are having a constructive discussion. Here is my revised statement.

The reason why we have sexual intercourse is because we find that it gives us pleasure, to continue our genes through a child, and that the child gives us a different kind of pleasure.
This goal can be achieved when the penis is inserted into the vagina, and the two gametes result in a zygote. Otherwise, sexual intercourse is technically undergone, but the goal is not met if contraceptives are used or some other inhibition towards the egg/sperm fertility/vitality is consumed.
What you described is technically sexual intercourse because the sperm fertilizes the egg, it is just in an unOrthodox way, the child is not theirs, it is only one man's child. Two sperm cannot fertilize an egg. There are two parents: the egg donor and one man.

Thanks, but this thread is dead because of the last shill. Happy Fourth, mate.

Here:
You are the same poster from the last thread. You posted the same image, you have the same speech pattern ("nice try, tho", "try harder", "better luck next time", etc.).
Don't waste your time, then. Anything I say is a false equivalence, it is irrelevant that pedophiles who are attracted to the same sex have any relationship to gay men, bug-chasing is an isolated incident and should never be mentioned again. We get it, the last thread. Stop raiding these, please.

>I disagree about becoming consumerists over sexual deviants
You are entitled to your opinion senpai, but I think you are letting the fact that you were molested as a child cloud your judgement.
>leading to their moral downfall into a life of individualism, where all they care about is pleasure: a hedonist's paradise.
Fucking Commie confirmed. You do understand that a consumerist indoctrination would result in people seeking false pleasure through consumerism right? They would be living a life of excess faced with constant disappointment when they realize the pleasures of consumerism are short-lived(burgerland speaking from experience).
Also, your overall argument is a slippery-slop one and I'm just responding because I'm bored.

>Don't waste your time, then.
already said I wasn't - you argue no different than a SJW. any article/scientific study that goes against your narrative is ignored. arguing with you is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. later.

'the fact that'
okay

I don't disagree that this is a bad outcome, that that is what will happen because that is the path of least intellectual resistance, but I am saying that you cannot turn a blind eye to the media's attempt to hypersexualize youth and turn them into sexual deviants. It isn't a slippery slope if that is exactly what is happening. Look at modern music videos and tell me otherwise. Or dance trends. The two are linked: degenerates shill their sex-crazed albums to teens who want to buy for themselves because that is the only thing they see.

End on an ad-hominem attack, just like last thread. I have not insulted you once, but you call me the irrational one. I have read (skimmed the really long one because it's a few pages, at least) everything you posted. What is your rebuttal to this article from the CDC? cdc.gov/std/life-stages-populations/stdfact-msm.htm
It literally states that "sexually active gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at greater risk [to contract STD's]."
This is against your claim that straights and gays are about the same, pound for pound. Where do we go from here?
Please treat me with respect, we are trying to discuss a topic, no need to get hostile. I have not disrespected you or name-called you.

CDC Fact Sheet: What Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men Need to Know About Sexually Transmitted Diseases

there is literally nothing on STD frequency rates here. you are a certified retard.

because i've already posted it. it's right here once again, I just don't understand how you don't comprehend this.
heterosexual sex increases the likelihood of certain diseases (herpes, PP, HPV, scabies, NGU, and genital warts - while homosexuals have more problems with HIV, anal warts, early syphilis, and gonorrhea. the rates are relatively the same just with different diseases. what's not to get?

If you truly wish to stare into the heart of AIDS, STIs, degeneracy and child abuse look not to /lgbt/ but to Africa.

carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity
The promiscuity of homosexuals has no say in the rate at which, proportional to their population as a percentage, they spread disease amongst themselves?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6765390

cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/
The first few paragraphs highlight the proportional thing I was speaking about. They are around 3% of the population, but make up a large percentage of the AIDS cases. Promiscuity has nothing to do with it, I guess. False equivalences and whatnot.

Let me ask you this Sup Forums, would you blame Ben Carson for the chimpouts? Would you blame your fellow hetero for the hookup culture which you see on Jersey Shore? Those here who are married, would you blame your wife for the cuntening happening on western culture?

Gays are degenerate in general? Yes, because society is degenerate in general. The thing about 1000 partners is bullshit tho, the numbers simply don't add up.

You did shift the goalpost and claiming you didn't with the evidence of how you did it does not change that.
>What you described is technically sexual intercourse
Argument about gay men not being able to have sexual intercourse is now over.
>the child is not theirs, it is only one man's child.
Argument about whose child is it starting now. In that case no adopted couple has any rights to their adopted children because they didn't provide the sperm and egg. As we know this is untrue it's safe to say that as long as the two men take responsibility for raising the child it's their child. They too can experience the joys of raising a child. Also, it will one day be possible for a child to have two biological fathers.

>mfw this actually was allowed to air in 2007
>tfw nowadays this episode would banned in some countries
youtube.com/watch?v=SydfoFLWmds

As I said earlier: "If you engage in promiscuous activities with a male, you are a sodomite. Please stop this "gay men, not faggots" meme, it's the same as "black men, not niggers" meme. The question is: is it worth it to retain relations with this group of people if it means tolerating the crime or the sodomy."

You can't say something is over, a gay man can never have sexual intercourse because there is no egg, they are only sexually stimulating one another.
I agree with the adoption point, it is not their child, they did not have sexual intercourse to birth the child. It is not biologically theirs. If the parents die and it is given to a relative, then that is for the sake of necessity and well-being of the child, the last case scenario. Otherwise, a child given to another couple from a healthy and stable couple
is, effectively, stealing the child and giving it to an illegitimate beta family with no genetic link to the child.
It is not their child to raise.
On that day, traditional marriage and childbirth will have been slaughtered. We will have killed God and taken his place.

Oh here he goes again. Look at you Canada, posting here thinking you just said some smart shit.

Out of all countries that post here Canadians are the ones that piss me off the most. Their entire fucking culture makes no sense. What exactly is it that you do? Wear flannel shirts and slurp syrup?

If I think of America I think of guns, pop culture and freedom. Sure, lots of ignorant baboons but at least they wear their retardation like a badge of honor, use it as a cultural identity, their flag promotes the unity of the country with all these stripes and stars.

Germany is orderly, a country that prides itself on its rules and their citizens who follow them. It's also the country with the biggest responsibility when it comes to destroying Europe with its two world wars and government sanctioned refugee crisis. Their flag waves strong colors, black, red and gold. A dominant flag for a dominant country.

Russia is strong and stubborn to a fault. They live hard lives and don't complain about it. Obviously the entire country is pretty much a shithole but it breeds strong people who can take care of themselves. Their flag represents the cold, the white, the blue but also the burning passion in the red, it all comes together to signify that their country is bleak but there is strength in that.

But Canada, what are they fucking known for? Being "nice", i guess? Is that your role in the world? Being fucking nice? That's not an achievement. Everyone can be nice. It's easy to be nice. You just don't have to say anything bad. So what did your fucking country decide to put on their flag to show the entire world what Canada is all about? A leaf. A FUCKING LEAF. You decided that you like to slurp your shitty syrup so damn much that you might as well put the fucking leaf that it's made of on the flag. You don't even respect your own country so why the hell should I.

okay

>states personal and religious belief as fact
ok

There is no way for two men to have a child without the help of a female. It is literally biologically impossible. Nothing to do with personal belief, it's an objective fact of life. I am saying that altering this will be like playing as the creator of life, be that God or whatever you wish to believe in.
I thought you wanted to leave? Anything I say is wrong, you remind me of this guy: youtube.com/watch?v=7Z6TecVZAhk

Some of Bell and Weinberg's findings are outdated.[43][44][45] Philosopher Michael Ruse comments in Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry (1988) that the AIDS epidemic, which began after Homosexualities was published, has probably made Bell and Weinberg's picture of gay sexual behavior obsolete.[46] Philosopher John Corvino writes that Homosexualities is the study most commonly cited to prove that gay men are sexually promiscuous, but that it was not based on a broad sample and that a more recent and extensive University of Chicago study, Edward Laumann et al.′s The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, produced different results.[47] Laumann et al. found that gay and bisexual men reported an average of 3.1 sex partners in the previous 12 months in 1994, well above the 1.8 reported by heterosexual men, but far fewer than was the norm in some urban gay communities in the pre-AIDS era.[48] Murphy comments that Bell and Weinberg studied people who came of age before gay liberation, and it is likely that a much smaller proportion of gays would now be dissatisfied with their sexual orientation or interested in attempting to change it through therapy.[49]

find a source not from 1970 ya? scientific studies that old are generally very easy to google and debunk in seconds. also the numbers are off not even close to 1000 gg no re

>media's attempt to hypersexualize youth and turn them into sexual deviants.
And I'm not disagreeing that the media has influence on behavior of the youth(since fuckers use psychological research and know what works), but I'm saying that media is only effective as long as people are consuming it. Basically, as long as you are not holding the people that are responsible for it(mainly people trying to sell you unnecessary shit) then you aren't going to go anywhere. At this point it's safe to assume that the only thing gay people are doing is normalizing their behavior to the general public. Which if you think about it isn't a bad thing when you take into consideration the fact that most of the other stats(STI related) you listed is the result of them being ostracized and forced to live in fear and hiding. Without the fear of being ostracized they are more free to seek help(informational or medical) sooner and get treatment early(when they catch an STI).
Overall, both men and women are both being made to feel like shit about themselves in an effort to sell them shit and I find that to be more detestable especially when it comes to youth.

>Otherwise, a child given to another couple from a healthy and stable couple
is, effectively, stealing the child and giving it to an illegitimate beta family with no genetic link to the child.
It is not their child to raise.
On that day, traditional marriage and childbirth will have been slaughtered. We will have killed God and taken his place.

this is the stupidest thing ive heard in my life. you heard him orphans and kids in foster care - go fuck yourself we don't want no beta families

Anything from over 20 years ago is bunk because of its age? I'd wager to say that's a fallacy, but whatever I say is probably a false equivalence.

Stupid is subjective, just like your morals. Let people do what they want to do, it isn't hurting anybody! Also, any source is irrelevant when it draws focus to the relationship between predators and same-sex incidents. You are the anti-science loser!
I explained orphan cases and cases of necessity. Mind your tongue, please. I have not used a profanity against you to discredit your arguments and I suggest you act the same way.

The same applies to consumer goods: they only work if people buy them and engage in the cycle you referenced earlier.
It is not a good thing to normalize sodomy, don't dance around the issue. You have a point that healthcare will be more readily available, but the lowest common denominator of society need not better themselves, but die off and ensure filth does not continue.

>muh fallacy
just posted something debunking it. in that same post. l2read pls

> Also, any source is irrelevant when it draws focus to the relationship between predators and same-sex incidents

and again... the majority of pedophiles are not gay men who date other men. these are pedophiles who exclusively go after kids, you comparing them to gay men is the false equivalency. the same false equivalency would be me comparing pedophiles who molest girls to heterosexuals... they just aren't attracted to women.
>You are the anti-science loser!
is this what Sup Forums's sjw is like? a religious fanatic who dismisses sources because muh bible and muh degeneracy

Top fucking KEKThank you for providing an entertaining thread senpai. You've clearly given up on arguing and have switched over to the I was only pretending to be retarded phase.

On the off chance that some lurker faggot is taking you seriously based on their religious beliefs here is a quote from John Donne:
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.

Your argument is that if, at any time, there exists a counter-response, then the original claim is invalid. Literally anything I post, you say that because there is another article, I am wrong, even though gay men have more AIDS, the fetishization of AIDS and drug abuse is commonplace (or severely overrepresented) in many gay communities, gays are more promiscuous, and more likely to spread disease amongst one another because of this.
All of these are irrelevant because: gays don't have AIDS as much and other people also have AIDS (making gay AIDS irrelevant), the blogs and tumblr pages dedicated to bug-chasing don't exist (or if they do, only small minorities not even noteworthy relative to overall homosexual population), gays aren't more promiscuous because of data from OKCupid (ignoring Grindr or general homosexual stereotypes in their own communities, dance club behaviour, etc.), and that diseases amongst gays are non-sequiturs because the data is from 1970 (can't possibly be true to this day).

Define homosexuality for me again.

I have never professed my faith towards anything, you are projecting a strawman upon me so you can attack me as some archetypical user. I have not called you a gay man even if you are defending gays, why do you think it is okay to call me such terms?

What leads you to this conclusion? I haven't tossed in the towel, even though I disagree with everything you say. I haven't claimed allegiance to God, you are the same as the previous guy who is making a strawman so it is easier to attack. I have an assumption that you want this to be true so you can claim the moral high ground (ironically) and leave.

Please don't tell me Sup Forums is defending fags now.

Only these guys, ()
Skim through the thread and tell me who is the reasonable one.
One says gay men can have sexual intercourse the way it is biologically defined, and the other says that there is no relationship between pedophiles and the sex of the child they are attracted to, and that disease spreading/fetishization in gay communities is irrelevant and not to be taken seriously because he read something that suggested otherwise, therefore it is true and any cases that run contrary to this are non-sequiturs.

it's just /lgbt/ trying to infiltrate Sup Forums again.

Give it a week or two then they'll stop and you'll see the real Sup Forumsacks pop up like weeds again crusading against degeneracy.

Personally I think that through humanist philosophy nothing is sacred and everything is permitted since, well, philosophically you can propose anything and everything holds neither more nor less value. As such Sup Forums should just stop "reasoning" with fags and come to terms with dogmata.

tl;dr purge /lgbt/ because we want to. There is no reason to do it, nor not to.

A voice of reason appears.

kys would be a more effective way of ending all interactions with gay especially if you believe ultimately nothing matters.

I'm not a nihilist, so.
In the words of the other guy, "nice try tho".

>Your argument is that if, at any time, there exists a counter-response, then the original claim is invalid. Literally anything I post, you say that because there is another article, I am wrong

is this a joke? i'm saying the statistics you use to back up your points are wrong. then I provide articles that prove so - this much is called a debate. you're just upset that you can't find data to support your narrative that isn't easily debunked using a 5 second google search. yawn.
and I bring your religion into this because you're the one making references to it... guess what? not everyone is christian. the minute you impose your morals on others you're no better then muslims. live your life how you want, you shouldn't give a fuck how others live theirs unless it effects your life
>b-but gays are gross!

In my bigoted, racist, homophobic, transphobic and mysoginistic point of view,

I think you should all be crucified.
Your logic, through the technicalities of philosophy, is no more valid than my own logical construct of anti-degeneracy.

In other words:
>Eat shit and fuck off you will never be accepted.

and before you say I haven't
let's take a look at:
wow quite the man of science you are. fuck off back to tumblr with your only argument being "my fee-fees and beliefs!"

kek my feelz are hertz now

I don't hate homosexuals, I hate faggots
You can't help being a homo but you can help being a faggot

>tfw homosexuality is increasing in public favor :^)
Pew Global Attitudes Project 2013: "Which one of these comes closer to your opinion, number 1 or number 2?: #1 – Homosexuality should be accepted by society, #2 – Homosexuality should not be accepted by society." source
Country #1 #2
North America
Canada 80% 14%
United States 60% 33%
Europe
Spain 88% 11%
Germany 87% 11%
Czech Republic 80% 16%
France 77% 22%
Britain 76% 18%
Italy 74% 18%
Greece 53% 40%
Poland 42% 46%
Russia 16% 74%

Not the right post you linked. Not saying your data is irrelevant, just that providing it does not make mine irrelevant. You can say it proves it wrong, the reasoning behind it is flawed but you do not want to admit your own faults, only point out that of others. I am willing to cede that bug-chasing is not unanimously accepted by the gay community, but I am not going to ignore it because you say it is so. You say that gays are not as promiscuous (therefore, do not spread disease as frequently), but when I link something that suggests otherwise, you "yawn" the argument away.

This thread is summed up by this guy:

Now I know you are the guy from the last thread, he also unironically used yawn as if he is late for a debate club meeting or something.
Again, I never said I am Christian.

First link is literally what I accused you of: citing sources that do not, beyond reasonable doubt, refute the claims made. It says "Bell and Weinberg studied people who came of age before gay liberation" for the justification that before this was normalized, they were more promiscuous. So now, when it is advertised on sitcoms, broadcast on television, and taught in schools, this incentivizes chastity amongst homosexuals? If anything, it has given a pedestal for these promiscuous behaviours to be broadcast.

Second link is an ad-hominem, treat me with respect and I will treat you with respect. Refuse information if you want, I don't care.

Third link was the "spelling mistake, therefore irrelevant hehehe" meme I was referring to, the same antics the guy from the other thread had as well (that is to say, no real refutations, only masquerading to be morally superior). Define homosexuality for me and see that it relies on sex as a defining trait, how is it irrelevant that pedophiles are attracted to the same sex?

Fourth link I have presented a counter to here: This and (continued)

>Give it a week or two then they'll stop
We've been here since before /lgbt/ was created you newfag.

(continued) Are pre-written responses which you literally posted yesterday. Make it less obvious that you have a goal coming into this, that you crash these threads with a purpose. See the attached picture for proof.
The meme arrows give it away as well. Like I said, I never said I was Christian, and I would appreciate it if you treated this conversation with an ounce of respect and not call me profanities when I have no sworn at you throughout the duration of this topic.

Homosexuality is a choice.

I honestly can't help but call you a retard when you post stuff like this gem:
>Not saying your data is irrelevant, just that providing it does not make mine irrelevant.

when we have data that doesn't match up on the same topic one of us is wrong, that's the bottom line there is no "we'll well meet in the middle!"
>First link is literally what I accused you of: citing sources that do not, beyond reasonable doubt, refute the claims made.

"Laumann et al. found that gay and bisexual men reported an average of 3.1 sex partners in the previous 12 months in 1994, well above the 1.8 reported by heterosexual men, but far fewer than was the norm in some urban gay communities in the pre-AIDS era.[48]

yes that completely trashed your 1000 partners post. it wasn't even close m8 are you even trying at this point

>Second link is an ad-hominem, treat me with respect and I will treat you with respect. Refuse information if you want, I don't care.
because the cite you linked to back up your claim had nothing on the percentage rate of STDs on homosexuals... there was no information to refuse. try again or maybe read the sources you post..? here it is for ya: cdc.gov/std/life-stages-populations/stdfact-msm.htm

What makes you so sure that what you are saying is infallible and should be accepted at face value? What you were doing (in the last thread and this one) was posting what could have been valid rebuttals but phrasing them in a way as if the topic is finished, over because you replied.

>we will meet in the middle.
Never said that, one of us is wrong and it is you when you say that there is no reason to analyze the relationship between pedophiles and the sex of the child to which they are attracted to.
You make my point right now: "are you even trying" (this is over now).
Again, modern HIV distribution is indicative of a trend that has not died out in the gay communities. Source: lifesitenews.com/news/epidemic-1-2-of-gay-men-will-have-hiv-by-age-50-if-current-rates-continue-w
Your source says that these trends should not exist, but somebody is sodomizing somebody else for this to happen.

The first paragraph was the important part, the rest was an information sheet. It says "Am I at risk for STDs?

While anyone who has sex can get an STD, sexually active gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at greater risk. In addition to having higher rates of syphilis, more than half of all new HIV infections occur among MSM. Many factors contribute to the higher rates of STDs among MSM:

Higher rates of HIV and STDs among MSM increase a person’s risk of coming into contact with an infected partner and becoming infected themselves."
This is what I was referencing, I apologize if I didn't make it clear.

>1 out of 2 gay men will have hiv by age 50 f current rates continue
HIV is declining in the U.S. i want to genuinely know if you know what a valid source is/how to find one? notice how mine usually end in .gov or .org and yours in .com. this should say something, but you will chalk it up to nothing of course.

>While anyone who has sex can get an STD, sexually active gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at greater risk. In addition to having higher rates of syphilis, more than half of all new HIV infections occur among MSM. Many factors contribute to the higher rates of STDs among MSM

i already explained this in and didn't argue against it: homosexuals ARE more likely to get those diseases. just as straights are more likely to get the ones up there. what is your point?

this all comes down to what form of sex makes it easier for XYZ disease to infect someone (anal vs vaginal)

would me posting genital herpes, NGU, stats etc effecting more straights than gays prove straights are filthy diseasebags? no. but that is what you are arguing on the converse with HIV statistics.

Did you read the source? Here: "A fact sheet released at the end of June by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) warns that HIV rates, already at epidemic proportions, are continuing to climb steadily among men who have sex with men (MSM)."

>what is your point?
Proportionally speaking, these numbers are alarming. Straights are the majority, it is to be expected that bad apples arise. For that few gays to engage in these things at that rate, is it not indicative of a culture not dependent on time, but upon traditional values embedded into the communities? youtube.com/watch?v=eE9JlONzrVU
Not saying anything, I posted this in the last one.
I'm not saying all gays are "filthy diseasebags", just that for the amount of gays that exist, these numbers should mean something more than just "another statistic".
Gays are around 2-5% of the population in the US. Make of that what you will.

Similarly, I am noting how, although blacks commit crime as much as whites do (whites commit crime more than blacks), proportionally speaking, they are much more likely TO commit crime.

Personally, I don't agree with sex outside of marriage because it is proven to increase STDs, lead to unhappier marriages, and less stable marriages.